Written Answers Thursday 2 November 2006

Scottish Executive

Act of Union

David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has made to celebrate the 300th anniversary in 2007 of the Act of Union and when it will announce a programme of events and other commemorative activities.

Patricia Ferguson: The Scottish Executive is intending to support this anniversary through a range of events planned by our National Agencies. Discussions are still on-going so a more detailed response will be issued in due course.

Equine Industry

Mr Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what incentives and funding it makes available under the Scottish Rural Development Plan (SRDP) and other avenues to encourage new entrants into the equine industry.

Ross Finnie: Under the 2000-06 SRDP, the Environment and Rural Affairs Department has supported many excellent examples of farm diversification into horse-related businesses. Rural development schemes such as the Farm Business Development Scheme (FBDS) and Agriculture Business Development Scheme (ABDS) have historically provided funding for a range of equestrian projects. Since 2001, a total of 96 equine related projects have been approved for funding across Scotland, with grants totalling £1.63 million. The types of project funded have included outdoor and indoor arenas, pony trekking centres, liveries and riding schools. We have also promoted horse-related tourism in Scotland by providing support for a variety of tourist accommodation projects which encompass equine-related services, such as stabling for visitors’ own horses.

  As the current SRDP is coming to an end, the FBDS and ABDS schemes have now closed to new applicants. For the new programme covering 2006-13, no final decisions have yet been taken on specific measures to be funded but I anticipate that the extension of Land Management Contracts will make funding available to an even wider range of businesses across the rural economy, including to the equine industry, where eligibility criteria allow.

Further and Higher Education

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many individuals who have gained a Higher National Diploma in each of the last 10 years have subsequently entered higher education and, of these, how many entered higher education at a level above that of the first year level of their course.

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many individuals who have gained a Higher National Diploma in each of the last 10 years have chosen to enter higher education outwith Scotland.

Nicol Stephen: This information is not held centrally.

Further and Higher Education

Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-27811 by Nicol Stephen on 12 September 2006, what the explanation is for the difference between the number of students declaring a mental health difficulty in higher education institutions and the number of such students in further education institutions and what measures will be put in place to address this issue.

Nicol Stephen: The figures I provided in response to your question S2W-27811 on 12 September 2006, indicate that in higher education institutes one in 350 students reported a mental health difficulty in 2004-05, whereas in colleges the ratio was one in 90 vocational students.

  Colleges provide flexible and accessible programmes of study, including evening and weekend classes, often close to the student’s home. The more flexible and modular nature of college provision is likely to be attractive particularly while students are dealing with physical and mental health issues.

  The second part of your question has been addressed in the response to your question S2W-27810 on 4 September. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Housing

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the availability of socially rented housing in Glasgow.

Johann Lamont: The Executive is making unprecedented levels of investment available in Glasgow to increase the availability of good quality social rented housing through both improvement and new build programmes.

  This year we are providing £70 million to fund over 1,000 new and improved social rented homes in the city.

  On top of that, our support will lead to a further 900 new homes being approved this year in Glasgow as part of 6,000 new replacement homes for those affected by GHA’s demolition proposals.

Justice

Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive how many shop proprietors have been fined for selling cigarettes to under 16-year-olds in the Scottish Borders and nationwide since 2003.

Cathy Jamieson: In 2003-04 and 2004-05 a total of three persons were convicted of selling cigarettes to under 16-year-olds. None of these were in courts in the Scottish Borders.

Poverty

Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what additional measures it intends to put in place to promote enterprise as a result of the recent publication of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Nicol Stephen: We will continue to work with local authorities, the enterprise networks and other bodies to encourage regeneration and the promotion of enterprise in Scotland’s deprived areas. Clearly it is vital that the most up-to-date information on deprivation is acted upon.

Schools

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with COSLA on the consultation process that should be carried out in connection with rural school closures, in light of the issues raised by Petition PE872.

Peter Peacock: The statutory requirements for consultation on any local authority school closure proposal are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.)(Scotland) Regulations 1981. Guidance on these regulations was issued in 1981 and the Scottish Executive issued additional guidance in September 2004 on handling proposals for changes to the school estate, including school closures, whether rural or urban.

  COSLA prepared and issued in October 2006 a guide for local authorities on School Estates Management, which deals among other things with communicating and consulting with parents and other stakeholders. The COSLA guide in no way overtakes or replaces the Executive’s guidance.

Schools

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with local authorities on the consultation process that should be carried out in connection with rural school closures, in light of the issues raised by Petition PE872.

Peter Peacock: The statutory requirements for consultation on any local authority school closure proposal are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.)(Scotland) Regulations 1981. Guidance on these regulations was issued in 1981 and the Scottish Executive issued additional guidance in September 2004 on handling proposals for changes to the school estate, including school closures, whether rural or urban.

  Following requests from Parliament, I asked COSLA to consider preparing further guidance for authorities on improving the consultation processes. COSLA is the representative body for local authorities in Scotland, and the COSLA working group which produced the recently issued guide on School Estates Management comprised local authority members and officers. The COSLA guide in no way overtakes or replaces the Executive’s guidance.

  When COSLA issued their guide, I wrote to local authority Education Conveners emphasising the importance of the quality of consultations with parents and others on school estate matters.

Schools

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with parents’ groups on the consultation process that should be carried out in connection with rural school closures, in light of the issues raised by Petition PE872.

Peter Peacock: The statutory requirements for consultation on any local authority school closure proposal are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.)(Scotland) Regulations 1981. Guidance on these regulations was issued in 1981 and the Scottish Executive issued additional guidance in September 2004 on handling proposals for changes to the school estate, including school closures, whether rural or urban. The regulations require local authorities to consult parents of schools affected by specific closure proposals.

  The Executive is preparing information for parents about school closure consultation processes and, in connection with this, has engaged with and sought the views of representatives of parents.

  In addition I met the Rural Schools Network on 26 October 2005, including the Petitioner who submitted PE872 on behalf of another parents’ group. I intend to meet with the Rural Schools Network again in due course.

Schools

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has asked COSLA to have with parents’ groups on the consultation process that should be carried out in connection with rural school closures, in light of the issues raised by Petition PE872.

Peter Peacock: The statutory requirements for consultation on any local authority school closure proposal are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.)(Scotland) Regulations 1981. Guidance on these regulations was issued in 1981 and the Scottish Executive issued additional guidance in September 2004 on handling proposals for changes to the school estate, including school closures, whether rural or urban.

  The 1981 regulations require local authorities to consult parents of schools affected by specific school closure proposals.

  A COSLA working group has recently completed and issued a guide for local authorities on school estates management. At the meeting of the Parliament’s Education Committee on 26 October 2005, Fiona Hyslop sought a commitment about parental involvement in the working group. I did suggest this to the then COSLA Education spokesperson and Executive officials also conveyed that message to COSLA officials. Ultimately, it was for COSLA to decide whether it involved parents in an internal working group.

Scottish Enterprise

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment has been made of Scottish Enterprise’s effectiveness in rural Scotland.

Nicol Stephen: In 2000, we set out our strategy for rural Scotland in the publication Rural Scotland: A New Approach . This rural dimension of economic development is fully reflected in our strategy for the enterprise networks.

  The Scottish Enterprise Rural Policy Group continues to play a key role in maximising the economic opportunities for rural Scotland.

Scottish Enterprise

Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider the role of Scottish Enterprise in relation to the Scottish Small Towns Report 2007-13, produced by COSLA and the South of Scotland Alliance.

Allan Wilson: The Scottish Executive continues to be committed to the interests of small towns across Scotland.

  Alongside its partners, including local authorities, Communities Scotland and the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise has an important role to play in helping to address the issues raised in the report. In particular, Scottish Enterprise will consider its options for working with COSLA and other partners to better understand the links between cities and small towns; to ensure their mutual value is recognised, and, to develop fresh thinking on the economic role and opportunities of our small towns and the people who live in them.

Student Loans Company

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the average indebtedness to the Student Loans Company is of Scottish-domiciled borrowers who graduated or otherwise ceased to borrow in 2006 but who had borrowed for at least four years.

Nicol Stephen: This information is not currently available as those who graduate in 2006 and those who cease to borrow in 2006 do not enter repayment until April 2007.

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Parliamentary Questions

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will list for each individual MSP who submitted their name at least once for a computerised ballot for oral questions between 1 July 2005 and 5 October 2006, excluding Scottish ministers and the Presiding Officer, the proportion of their submissions which were successful.

George Reid: Under Scottish Parliament Standing Orders (Rule 13.6A.1) members who wish to lodge an oral General or Themed Question must first submit their names for selection. Under SO Rule 13.6A.3 names are selected for each Question Time by computerised ballot on a random basis. The selections are carried out in the order in which the proceedings to which they relate are to take place.

  It is normally the case that in each week during which the Parliament is sitting there will be one General Question Time and two Themed Question Times. Members can submit their name for one or more Question Times in any given week. However, a member’s name if selected in one of the earlier selections is disregarded in any subsequent selection of names in the same week. That is to say that, in any one week, the maximum number of times that members may submit their names is three times and the maximum number of times members may be selected to lodge an oral question is one time.

  During the period between 1 July 2005 and 5 October 2006 selections were made, by computerised ballot, for Question Times taken in 42 meetings of the Parliament. On that basis the maximum number of times members could have submitted their names for selection was 126 times and the maximum number of times they could have been selected to lodge a question was 42 times.

  The following table shows the number of times each member submitted their name, the number of times they were selected and the proportion of their submissions which were successful, for the period between 1 July 2005 and 5 October 2006.

  

Member
Number*
Number of Times
Name Submitted
Number of Times
Selected
 Proportion of 
Successful Submissions


 1
 111
 12
 10.8%


 2
 120
 12
 10.0%


 3
 16
 1
 6.2%


 4
 126
 13
 10.3%


 5
 120
 9
 7.5%


 6
 119
 20
 16.8%


 7
 71
 10
 14.1%


 8
 15
 2
 13.3%


 9
 90
 6
 6.7%


 10
 27
 0
 0.0%


 11
 60
 6
 10.0%


 12
 123
 10
 8.1%


 13
 13
 2
 15.4%


 14
 105
 13
 12.4%


 15
 126
 14
 11.1%


 16
 70
 6
 8.6%


 17
 108
 6
 5.6%


 18
 126
 10
 7.9%


 19
 90
 8
 8.9%


 20
 126
 18
 14.3%


 21
 108
 14
 12.9%


 22
 114
 23
 20.2%


 23
 69
 10
 14.5%


 24
 114
 10
 8.8%


 25
 42
 6
 14.3%


 26
 60
 7
 11.7%


 27
 24
 5
 20.8%


 28
 117
 13
 11.1%


 29
 126
 15
 11.9%


 30
 126
 20
 15.9%


 31
 126
 14
 11.1%


 32
 80
 9
 11.2%


 33
 83
 6
 7.2%


 34
 126
 19
 15.1%


 35
 123
 18
 14.6%


 36
 111
 13
 11.7%


 37
 100
 14
 14.0%


 38
 63
 8
 12.7%


 39
 90
 9
 10.0%


 40
 126
 17
 13.5%


 41
 28
 3
 10.7%


 42
 126
 15
 11.9%


 43
 123
 19
 15.4%


 44
 126
 15
 11.9%


 45
 43
 4
 9.3%


 46
 126
 15
 11.9%


 47
 126
 17
 13.5%


 48
 113
 14
 12.4%


 49
 116
 17
 14.7%


 50
 123
 13
 10.6%


 51
 126
 13
 10.3%


 52
 93
 11
 11.8%


 53
 123
 18
 14.6%


 54
 126
 16
 12.7%


 55
 6
 2
 33.3%


 56
 66
 7
 10.6%


 57
 93
 16
 17.2%


 58
 126
 17
 13.5%


 59
 102
 11
 10.8%


 60
 84
 9
 10.7%


 61
 126
 16
 12.7%


 62
 126
 20
 15.9%


 63
 60
 7
 11.7%


 64
 126
 11
 8.7%


 65
 66
 8
 12.1%


 66
 60
 6
 10.0%


 67
 126
 16
 12.7%


 68
 76
 12
 15.8%


 69
 87
 9
 10.3%


 70
 117
 13
 11.1%


 71
 117
 12
 10.3%


 72
 126
 22
 17.5%


 73
 126
 15
 11.9%


 74
 48
 6
 12.5%


 75
 126
 18
 14.3%


 76
 33
 5
 15.2%


 77
 126
 17
 13.5%


 78
 79
 10
 12.7%


 79
 123
 14
 11.4%


 80
 126
 16
 12.7%


 81
 126
 12
 9.5%


 82
 95
 11
 11.6%


 83
 63
 10
 15.9%


 84
 123
 22
 17.9%


 85
 126
 18
 14.3%


 86
 126
 11
 8.7%


 87
 111
 12
 10.8%


 88
 126
 19
 15.1%


 89
 90
 10
 11.1%


 90
 111
 11
 9.9%


 91
 113
 15
 13.3%


 92
 105
 10
 9.5%


 93
 83
 12
 14.5%


 94
 75
 9
 12.0%


 95
 17
 5
 29.4%


 96
 37
 4
 10.8%


 97
 126
 14
 11.1%


 98
 111
 9
 8.1%


 99
 85
 9
 10.6%


 100
 75
 11
 14.7%


 101
 26
 7
 26.9%


 102
 47
 1
 2.1%


 103
 73
 12
 16.4%


 104
 111
 14
 12.6%


 105
 96
 13
 13.5%


 106
 70
 8
 11.4%


 107
 33
 7
 21.2%



  Note: *These numbers represent the order in which staff processed the information reproduced in the table.

  Given the random nature of the selection process and that members decide each week whether to submit their names to one or more ballots, the proportion of successful submissions is likely to vary depending on the period under inquiry.

Parliamentary Questions

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on how many occasions Stewart Stevenson MSP submitted his name for the computerised ballot for oral questions between 1 July 2005 and 5 October 2006.

George Reid: During the period between 1 July 2005 and 5 October 2006 selections were made, by computerised ballot, for Question Times taken in 42 meetings of the Parliament. On each of these occasions three selections of names were made: one for General Question Time and two for Themed Question Time. On that basis the maximum number of times members could have submitted their names for selection was 126 times.

  Stewart Stevenson MSP submitted his name for 26 of the 42 occasions under inquiry, for selection in 48 out of 126 Question Times.

Parliamentary Questions

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what external validation of the algorithm for computerised ballot of MSPs’ names for oral questions has been carried out and when and by whom this was undertaken.

George Reid: : There has been no external validation of the algorithm for the computerised ballot of MSPs’ names for oral questions. However, a recent statistical analysis of the frequency of selection and distribution of the frequency found no indication of bias on the automated ballots.

Parliamentary Questions

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on what date the algorithm for the computerised ballot of MSPs’ names for oral questions was introduced and on what dates any amendments to it have been introduced.

George Reid: The algorithm for the computerised ballot of MSPs’ names for oral questions was introduced in the last quarter of 2000. It is a component of the Oral Questions template.

  The algorithm has been enhanced twice since the Oral Question template’s introduction:

  The first enhancement was implemented in July 2004 in response to an anomaly identified following a change in procedures in the way the oral questions were selected and presented. An announcement relating to this appeared in the Business Bulletin so that all members were made aware of the situation.

  The second enhancement was introduced in January 2006 to ensure that, even if the number of questions submitted in each category and the order in which they were submitted and by whom was constant; the "seed" used to generate a sequence of random numbers each time the ballot for each category was run would be unique. As part of this enhancement, analysis showed conclusively that although duplicate seeds had been possible, none had occurred.

Parliamentary Questions

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will conduct a cycle of repetitive tests, using the names submitted for the computerised ballot of MSPs’ names for oral questions, the results of which were published in the Business Bulletin of 5 October 2006, to establish how many such tests it is necessary to execute before a set of results is produced that includes a successful outcome for every name submitted and in doing so whether it will publish the number of names submitted to each part of that ballot.

George Reid: The SPCB will not conduct a cycle of repetitive tests as described as any such tests would not produce informative results. The tests could be repeatedly run for the same sample of members and the outcome is likely to be different every time due to the nature of the process. It is possible that after only a few runs all the members’ names are selected, however, conversely it is also possible that it will take many runs to select all of the members’ names within a given sample.